REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT NUM OBO ISHMAEL VETSHE AND 1 ANOTHER
|
|
- Justin Moses Lester
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: JR In the matter between- NUM OBO ISHMAEL VETSHE AND 1 ANOTHER Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER PATRICK PERCY MAKGOPELA RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINE (PTY) LTD First Respondent Second Respondent Third Respondent Heard: 17 October 2013 Delivered: 07 February 2014 Summary: Review application. Principles governing inconsistent application of discipline. Principles governing resolution of dispute of facts. Employee accused of nepotism making bear allegation that others had also done the same. Not enough information placed before the employer to prepare a response to the allegation. Commissioner not called upon to consider inconsistency where allegation not properly substantiated by evidence.
2 2 JUDGMENT MOLAHLEHI J Introduction [1] This is an application to review and set aside the arbitration award made by the second respondent (the Commissioner) under case number NWRB and dated 1 June In terms of the arbitration award, the Commissioner found the dismissal of the individual applicants to have been substantively fair and accordingly dismissed their unfair dismissal claim. [2] The applicants filed an application for condonation for the late filing of their review application launched in terms of section 145 (1) of the LRA (Act No. 66 of 1995) as amended. The condonation for the late filing of both their review application and supplementary affidavit was granted at the commencement of the hearing. Background facts [3] The two individual applicants are former employees of the third respondent who respectively at the time of their dismissal occupied the positions of human resources coordinators and human resource development assistant. [4] The first individual applicant, Mr Vetshe, the HR Coordinator was charged with the following: 1. Failing to comply with Company Policies, Procedures, Regulations and Practices- In that you failed to adhere to and manage the Cadet program due diligently in terms of recruitment, appointment and training of employees. 2. Not acting in the best interests of the Company.
3 3 3. Failure to adhere to Mine Health and Safety Policies, Procedures, Regulations and Standard Practices- In that you had arranged and/or allowed new Employees to work underground without the proper training and therefore placed their lives and that of fellow employees in danger. 4. Nepotistism- In that you either arranged and/or allowed a family member/s to be appointed on the Cadet program without declaring and/or reporting same to your Superiors. [5] The third applicant, Mr Davids, was charged with the following: 1 Actions against the best interests of the Company. 2. Failure to adhere to Mine Health and Safety Policies, Procedures, Regulations and Standard Practices [6] The charges against the applicants arose in the context where the third respondent and the first applicant (NUM) had concluded an agreement in terms of which a cadet program was developed to employ family members of those employees who had been medically boarded. [7] In terms of the cadet program which commenced operation in January 2011, a list of people who met the necessary requirements was developed. Their qualification had to be vetted by the third respondent. The other requirement was that those who were accepted into the cadet program had to undergo training based at Klipfontein Development Centre (KDC). On completion of the training, the cadets were to be placed at various mines to do their practical training. [8] The recruitment and the training process of the cadets was overseen by the task team consisting of NUM representative and Mr Vetshe. The responsibility of Mr Vetshe and NUM representative was to ensure that the principles of the cadet programme were adhered to, and that there was no deviation from the agreed principles of the programme. [9] During February 2012, a list of cadets was screened for the purposes of determining whether they qualified for the programme. After the completion of
4 4 the screening, Mr Botha, the HR coordinator informed Mr Vetshe those who were not recommended for appointment and that they should not be allowed into the programme. The list of those who were not recommended for the appointment included Ms Lebogang Vetshe a relative of Mr Vetshe. [10] Ms Lebogang Vetshe was despite not being recommended, appointed into the cadet programme. In addition to the problem of the appointment of Ms Lebogang Vetshe, the third respondent discovered that some 12 people had been appointed and had commenced work underground without the required job training. Those cadets had undergone Operational Skills Development (OSD) for induction, but did not undergo the training at Klipfontein Development Centre (KDC) as was required of them. [11] Allowing the cadets to work underground without the necessary training posed a health and safety risk for the third respondent. Ms Lebogang Vetshe was amongst the 12 cadets. [12] The instruction that the 12 cadets should be sent to work underground was given to Mr Moholo by Mr Vetshe, who was in terms of the cadet programme responsible for allocating the newly appointed cadets to the different mines. [13] As indicated earlier, Mr Vetshe and Mr Davids were charged and dismissed arising in particular from the appointment of the 12 cadets and their deployment underground without prior training. Their appeal was unsuccessful and subsequent thereto they referred a dispute concerning the alleged unfair dismissal dispute to the first respondent. The grounds for review [14] The applicants contended that the Commissioner s arbitration award is reviewable in terms of section 145 (2) (a) of the LRA for the following reasons: 14.1 The Commissioner misconstrued the law relating to consistent application in that he failed to take in account that the Third respondent had acted inconsistently in charging the member Ishmael Vetshe for nepotism;
5 The second respondent committed a gross irregularity in that he failed to apply his mind to the material evidence before him and as a result the members were not given a fair hearing. I state that had the second respondent applied his mind to this material evidence he could have found that the third respondent inconsistently applied the rule and found dismissal to be unfair. [15] In the arbitration award, the Commissioner identified the issued which he had to determine in relation to Mr Vetshe as follows: 57 For the 1 st applicant Mr Ishmael Lungile Vetshe substantive issues are: a) Whether or not the Applicant contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace in all charges? b) Whether or not dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard in 3 charges? c) Whether or not the rule or standard has been consistently applied by the Respondent regarding the charge of nepotism? The Applicant will not challenge the appropriateness of sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard of nepotism charge. [16] In relation to Mr Davids, the issues for determination were identified as follows: 58. For the 2 nd Applicant Mr. Moleko David Davids substantive issues are: a) whether or not the Applicant contravened a rule or standard regulating conduct in, or of relevance to, the workplace in all charges? b) Whether or not dismissal was an appropriate sanction for the contravention of the rule or standard in all charges? [17] In analysing the evidence and the facts before him, the Commissioner concludes that he was confronted with two conflicting versions. He resolved the conflict by resorting to what was stated in Sasol Mining (Pty) Ltd V CCMA
6 6 and Another, 1 where the Court in dealing with this issue had the following to say: One of the commissioner s prime functions was to ascertain the truth as to the conflicting versions before him. As I have noted, this much the commissioner appears to have appreciated. What he manifestly lacked was any sense of how to accomplish this task, or which tools were at his disposal to do so. The commissioner was obliged at least to make some attempt to assess the credibility of each of the witnesses and to make some observation on their demeanour. He ought also to have considered the prospects of any partiality, prejudice or self-interest on their part, and determined the credit to be given to the testimony of each witness by reason of its inherent probability or improbability. He ought then to have considered the probability or improbability of each party s version. [18] In applying the above test the Commissioner made the following finding: 64 I find that the evidence of Messrs Bester and Moholo had been credible as truly before me, Applicants could not rebut any charge that was levelled against them. The Applicants had on several occasions agreed to the essential aspects of the misconduct. Mr. Vetshe conceded that he did not check the cadets documents as he trusted the HR Assistant but misdirected himself that one of the supervisors told him that the cadets were unskilled. Mr. Davids also conceded that there were no other documents he checked prior approving the movement of cadets. I am of the view that the Respondent s witness evidence was more plausible that that of the Applicants. 65 On the issue of nepotism Mr. Vetshe failed to rebut the charge. How can a senior person like Mr. Vetshe plays to be ignorant that his family member was part of the cadets? After he became aware why he did not withdraw himself from the whole exercise. He came with the excuse that he reported the names of Mr. Mahokho s family to Mr. Bester, but he failed to rebut that why at the whole list the authorised Ms. L.M. Vetshe s engagement. Further on the cadets that were found underground he was the one who gave such instruction again with a 1 (2011) 32 ILJ 723 (LC) at para 9.
7 7 lame excuse that he trusted his HR Assistant. I find that Mr. Vetshe was not a credible witness he only wanted to pursue a frivolous averment that he had done nothing wrong. [19] The Commissioner further found that the dismissal sanction was fair. The test for review [20] The basic test to apply in review application is whether the decision reached by the Commissioner is one that a reasonable decision-maker could not reach. 2 The authorities have repeatedly emphasised that this is a stringent test which excludes the determination of whether the arbitration award was wrong. 3 In NUM and Another v Samancor Ltd (Tubatse Ferrochome and Another, 4 the Court held that :... Even if the reviewing Court believes the award to be wrong there are limited grounds upon which it is entitled to interfere. [21] The reasonableness of the Commissioner s decision in the present matter has to be determined also in the context of the approach he adopted in dealing with the disputed facts which was placed before him during the arbitration proceedings. [22] The approach adopted in the Sasol matter referred to above in dealing with the resolution of conflicting versions and relied on by the Commissioner is in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in SFW Group Ltd and Another v Martel ET Cie and Another, 5 where the Court held that:...to come to a conclusion on the disputed issues a Court must make findings on (a) the credibility of the various factual witnesses; (b) their reliability, and (c) the probabilities... 2 Sidumo and Another v Rustenburg Platinum Mines and Others 2008 (2) SA 24 (CC) at paragraph See Fidelity Cash Management Services v CCMA and Others [2008] 3 BLLR 197 (LAC) and Gold Fields Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Kloof Gold Mine) v CCMA and Others (JA2/2012 delivered 4 November [2011] 11 BLLR 1041 (SCA) at para (1) SA 11 (SCA) at para 5.
8 8 [23] The other issue raised in this review application concerns the allegation of the failure by the Commissioner to take into account the inconsistent application of discipline by the third respondent. The issue of inconsistency in the application of discipline was considered by the Labour Appeal Court in Early Bird Farms (Pty) v Mlambo where the Court held that: Like cases should be treated alike...the respondent and Maziya were guilty of the same offence, the theft of the chicken pieces. Prima facie, they should have received the same penalty. I say prima facie, because an employer may be justified in differentiating between employees, guilty of the same offence on the basis of difference in personal circumstances (such as length of service and disciplinary record) or the merits (such as the roles played in the commission of the misconduct)... 6 [24] In Cape Town Council v Masitho and Others at 1961 the Court held that:...but where two employees have committed the same wrong, and there is nothing else to distinguish them, I can see no reason why they ought not generally to be dealt with in the same way Without that, employees will inevitably, and in my view justifiably, consider themselves to be aggrieved in consequence of at least a perception of bias. Evaluation [25] Mr Vetshe s case: As indicated earlier, the main complaint by the applicants in relation to Mr Vetshe s case is that the Commissioner committed gross irregularity in not taking into account the inconsistent application of discipline by the third respondent. In this respect, the applicants contend that Mr Mokaba, Mr Mahoko and Budumela who were also involved in nepotism in the same way as Mr Vetshe were not charged for the alleged misconduct. [26] The allegation of inconsistency is raised as an issue in dispute in the prearbitration minutes and thereafter during cross-examination of Mr Bester. The question to Mr Bester in that regard is put in the form of an inquiry as to why other employees were not charged with nepotism. 6 (2000) 21 ILJ 1957 (LAC) At 546G-I
9 9 [27] The applicants needed to do more than just making an allegation about inconsistency and posing a question of clarity as to why others were not charged. This is because the concept of inconsistency is not a rule and therefore the applicants needed to have taken their allegation further than stating it in the pre-arbitration minutes and enquiring about it during crossexamination. In order to succeed, the applicant ought to have provided more information about the issue. In the circumstances of this case, the applicants ought to have substantiated their allegation. The information they provided for the first time appear in both the heads of argument and in the supplementary affidavit ought to have been placed before the Commissioner during the arbitration proceedings. In this respect, it is contended on behalf of Mr Vetshe that Mr Makaba recruited his wife into the cadetship programme although she did not meet the requirements for such appointment. In the absence of proper evidence relating to the allegation of inconsistency, the third respondent could not have been expected to lead evidence as to why Mr Makaba was not charged when he had also, as alleged, committed the same offence as that of Mr Vetshe. [28] As indicated above, the details of the allegations about the alleged inconsistency raised in both the supplementary affidavit and the heads of argument do not assist the case of Mr Vetshe because it was not placed before the Commissioner during the arbitration proceedings. The Commissioner cannot accordingly be criticised for not taking that into account. In any case, this Court can only take into account, in considering the review application, the evidence and those materials which were before the Commissioner during the arbitration proceedings. [29] As concerning the substance of the charge proffered against Mr Vetshe, the Commissioner found that he failed to rebut the charge. It is important to note that Mr Vetshe did not dispute that employees with no proper safety related training were deployed underground. The excuse he gave for this serious risk to safety was that he trusted HR Assistant. The Commissioner also found Mr Vetshe not to have been a credible witness. This means that he had failed to
10 10 contradict the version of the third respondent that the dismissal was for a valid and fair reason. [30] In my view, the finding on the failure to adhere to safety requirements is much more serious than even nepotism upon which the defence of inconsistency is based on. It follows that the outcome of the arbitration award would still be sustainable even if the conclusion on inconsistency was to be found to be incorrect. In other words, in allowing employees who were not properly trained to work underground, Mr Vetshe created an intolerable situation that not only exposed the affected employees to the risk of injury and death but also others who may not have even been aware of the risk. [31] The case of Mr Davids: It is apparent that the Commissioner was faced with two conflicting versions in as far as the case of Mr Davids was concerned. [32] The case of the third respondent as presented through the testimony of Mr Bester was that Mr Davids was responsible for checking the qualifications of the employees and signed off to ensure that employees were referred to the correct training unit. According to him, Mr Davids was responsible to make sure that training was in place and that the legal requirements of training had not expired. He also stated that training was so important that every time there was a serious incident at the work place the first point of reference in the investigation is whether those responsible or involved had received the proper training. It was according to him the responsibility of Mr Davids to make sure after receiving the employees papers from the HR Assistance that the employees are sent to the correct training centre. [33] The case of Mr Davids was that he was only responsible for booking the training. [34] The Commissioner resolved the above conflicting versions by having regard to the contradictory evidence, the credibility of witnesses and the probabilities of the two versions. The Commissioner found that the witnesses of the third respondent were more credible than those of both Mr Vetshe and Mr Davids. He also took into account that Mr Davids conceded that there were no other documents he checked before approving the movement of the cadets.
11 11 [35] The conclusion reached by the Commissioner after considering the conflicting versions was that the version of the third respondent was more plausible than that of the applicants. [36] In light of the above analysis, I find no basis to interfere with the Commissioner s arbitration award and accordingly the applicants application stands to fail. It would however, in the circumstances of this case not be appropriate to allow the costs to follow the results. Order [37] In the premises the applicants review application of the arbitration award made under case number NWRB and dated 1 June 2012, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Molahlehi J Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
12 12 APPEARANCES: FOR THE APPLICANT: FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: G Mothobi of Mothobi Attorneys Mr J Mothibi of Norton Rose SA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: JR56/2015 In the matter between: CASHBUILD SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (THULAMASHE) and GODFREY MKATEKO
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Review application- inconsistent application discipline
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Of interest to other judges Case no: JR 314/2011 In the matter between: MONTE CASINO Applicant and COMMISSION
More informationBRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T
Sneller Verbatim/MLS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01 2003-03-24 In the matter between M KOAI Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between - Case no: JR2772-12 Not Reportable NATIONAL UNION OF MINE WORKERS MOTSHABALEKGOSI MOFFAT First Applicant Second Applicant
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. NEHAWU obo ESME MAGOBIYANA
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Not of interest to other judges Case no: JR 677/16 In the matter between: NEHAWU obo ESME MAGOBIYANA Applicant And IMTHIAZ SIRKHOT N.O.
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT, JOHANNESBURG Case No: JR953/13 Not Reportable In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS Applicant And COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION DIVID
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT (PTY) LTD (MAGARENG MINE)
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2578 / 13 In the matter between: GLENCORE OPERATIONS SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD (MAGARENG MINE) Applicant and AMCU obo TSHEPO
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR 1147/14 In the matter between: THABISO MASHIGO Applicant and MEIBC First Respondent MOHAMMED RAFEE Second Respondent
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG L A CRUSHERS (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: L A CRUSHERS (PTY) LTD Not Reportable Case no: JR 1676/14 Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION First
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Not reportable CASE No: JR 1671/16 KELLOGG COMPANY SOUTH AFRICA PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant and FOOD AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 716/01. In the matter between: DUIKER MINING LTD. AND
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR 716/01 In the matter between: DUIKER MINING LTD. TAVISTOCK COLLIERY APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR 1265/13 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES Applicant and PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo R
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: D 869/2011 In the matter between: METRORAIL Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG MEC FOR EDUCATION (NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JA 37/2012 In the matter between: MEC FOR EDUCATION (NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL Appellant GOVERNMENT) and J M K MAKUBALO Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SFF INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR197/14 SOLIDARITY obo MEMBERS Applicants and SFF INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION NOT FOR GAIN First Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN SOLID DOORS (PTY) LTD
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BRIDGESTONE SA (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable/Not reportable Case no: JA28/15 In the matter between: BRIDGESTONE SA (PTY) LTD Appellant and NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS UNION OF
More informationRespondent (the Commissioner) made under case number GAJB ,
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JR 819/07 In the matter between: LANDSEC 1 ST APPLICANT TORONTO HOUSE CC 2 ND APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN. Nehawu obo Obakeng Victor Tilodi
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not Reportable In the matter between Case no: C30/15 Nehawu obo Obakeng Victor Tilodi Applicant and COMMISSIONER T NDZOMBANE First Respondent DEPARTMENT OF
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 665/2011 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES LTD and CCMA TARIQ
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT A DIVISION OF HUDACO TRADING (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no. JR 601/11 In the matter between: FILTER AND HOSE SOLUTIONS A DIVISION OF HUDACO TRADING (PTY) LTD Applicant and
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case No: 625/10 No precedential significance NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS MARIFI JOHANNES MALOMA First Appellant Second Appellant
More informationShort notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE. Introduction
Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE Introduction It is trite that in criminal proceedings a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, once that person has been
More informationShort notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE. Introduction
Short notes on: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - WHEN WILL COURTS DISREGARD THIS RULE Introduction It is trite that in criminal proceedings a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice, once that person has been
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN PICK N PAY RETAILERS (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Reportable/Not Reportable Case no: CA 19/2015 In the matter between: PICK N PAY RETAILERS (PTY) LTD Appellant and SOUTH AFRICAN CATERING COMMERCIAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT SOLIDARITY OBO MJJ VAN VUUREN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2791/08 In the matter between: SOLIDARITY OBO MJJ VAN VUUREN APPLICANT AND LEKWA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1225/2014 In the matter between: PSA obo SP MHLONGO Applicant and First Respondent THE GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL BARGAINING
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN CHEVRON SOUTH AFRICA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Not reportable Case No: C 734/2016 In the matter between CHEVRON SOUTH AFRICA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Applicant and CHEMICAL ENERGY PAPER PRINTING WOOD AND
More informationJR2032/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ] [11:34-11:52] JOHN RAMOTLAU SEKWATI. Third Respondent JUDGMENT
JR32/15-avs 1 JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR32/15 DATE: 17-04-19 In the matter between JOHN RAMOTLAU SEKWATI Applicant and CCMA DUMISANI NGWENYA EDCON LTD
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case No: JR 2720/12 In the matter between: T-SYSTEMS PTY LTD Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 1147/10 In the matter between: SA POST OFFICE LTD and CCMA JW MCGAHEY
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR1054/07 In the matter between: EVERTRADE Applicant and A KRIEL N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION KIM BOTES
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA90/2013 Not Reportable In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS TAOLE ELIAS MOHLALISI First Appellant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: JR 903/13 In the matter between: L A CRUSHERS Applicant and CCMA B E
More informationCOMMISSIONER SHIRAZ MAHOMED OSMAN Second respondent
Reportable Of interest to other judges IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN Case no: C 507 / 06 In the matter between: THE NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS First applicant WILLIAM KHOZA Second
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: JR115/02
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: JR115/02 In the matter between: KARAN BEEF Applicant and THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION FAIZEL MOOI N.O
More informationINTRODUCTION. [1] This is an application for condonation for the late filing of the third and
1IN THE LABOUR COURT OF AOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO JR 958/05 RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED (RUSTENBURG SECTION) APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between: Reportable Case no: JR 64/2014 IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: PR110/16 In the matter between: DALUBUHLE UYS MFIKI Applicant And GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE SECTORAL BARGAINING COUNCIL
More informationDOUBLE JEOPARDY. Is a municipality compelled to accept the ruling made by a disciplinary appeal tribunal?
DOUBLE JEOPARDY 1. Introduction Is a municipality compelled to accept the ruling made by a disciplinary appeal tribunal? 2. Background An employee was charged with two counts of misconduct. The case was
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SHANDUKA COAL (PTY) LTD THE NATONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS ( NUM ) Seventh Respondent
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JR 725-15 Not Reportable In the matter between: SHANDUKA COAL (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION (
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN. NUMSA obo Z JADA & 1 OTHER
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Not Reportable Case no: D834/2009 In the matter between: NUMSA obo Z JADA & 1 OTHER Applicant and DEFY REFRIGERATION A DIVISION OF DEFY
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT HLABISI MASEGARE AND OTHERS
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR OF SOUTH AFRICA COURT, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JS 293/2011 In the matter between - HLABISI MASEGARE AND OTHERS Applicants and ROBOR GALVANIZERS
More informationINTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA38/15 WOOLWORTHS (PTY) LTD Appellant and SOUTH AFRICAN COMMERCIAL CATERING AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION K MOHLAFUNO First Respondent
More informationMEC FOR HEALTH (GAUTENG) APPLICANT
1IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: JR 283/05 MEC FOR HEALTH (GAUTENG) APPLICANT AND BM MATHAMINI FIRST RESPONDENT ZODWA MDLADLA N.O SECOND RESPONDENT
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: JR 2209/13 In the matter between: N M THISO & 6 OTHERS Applicants And T MOODLEY
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Applicant. DENISE ERASMUS 1 ST Respondent
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT CAPE TOWN) CASE NO. C 455/07 In the matter between: PAM GOLDING PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD Applicant And DENISE ERASMUS 1 ST Respondent ADV KOEN DE KOCK 2 ND Respondent
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. SAMWU obo LUNGILE FELICIA TMT SERVICES AND SUPPLIES (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not reportable Case no: JR2195/14 In the matter between: SAMWU obo LUNGILE FELICIA Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG ARMAMENTS CORPORATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOC) LTD. Third Respondent JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1961/13; JR 1510/13 ARMAMENTS CORPORATION OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOC) LTD Applicant and CCMA WILLEM KOEKEMOER, N.O. SOLIDARITY J M
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN MEC FOR EDUCATION, GAUTENG
Reportable Delivered 28092010 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO JR 1846/09 In the matter between: MEC FOR EDUCATION, GAUTENG APPLICANT and DR N M M MGIJIMA 1 ST RESPONDENT
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] This is an application to review and set aside the arbitration award made by the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE CASE NO: JR1439/06 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS MONICA MITANI 1 ST APPLICANT 2ND RESPONDENT AND COMMISSION FOR
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH PARMALAT SA (PTY) LTD
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: Not Reportable Case no: PR 78 /2016 PARMALAT SA (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION R
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: Case no: JR 1172/14 BROWNS, THE DIAMOND STORE Applicant and COMMISSION
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Reportable C973/2013 In the matter between: WESTERN CAPE GAMBLING & RACING BOARD And COMIMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98. In the matter between: COMPUTICKET. Applicant. and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J118/98 In the matter between: COMPUTICKET Applicant and MARCUS, M H, NO AND OTHERS Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Date of Hearing:
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG COMPUTER STORAGE SERVICES AFRICA (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: CA7/2016 In the matter between: COMPUTER STORAGE SERVICES AFRICA (PTY) LTD Appellant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN POST OFFICE (PTY) LIMITED JUDGMENT
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO JR/1368-05 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN CWU obo MTHOMBENI APPLICANT AND COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSIONER E.L.E.
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG. Case No: JA36/2004
1 IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG Case No: JA36/2004 In the matter between SERGIO CARLOS APPELLANT and IBM SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD ELIAS M HLONGWANE N.O 1 ST RESPONDENT 2
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT CASE no. D 137/2010 In the matter between: NEHAWU PT MAPHANGA First Applicant Second
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JA27/15 INTERSTATE BUS LINES (PTY) LTD Appellant and DANIEL PHAKWE First Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN ROAD PASSENGER BARGAINING
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 2558/13 In the matter between: BHP BILLITON ENERGY COAL SOUTH AFRICA PTY LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not reportable Case no: JA37/2017 In the matter between: PIET WES CIVILS CC WATERKLOOF SKOONMAAKDIENSTE CC First Appellant Second Appellant and
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG BILLION GROUP (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA 64/2016 In the matter between: BILLION GROUP (PTY) LTD Appellant and MOTHUSI MOSHESHE First Respondent COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. Third Respondent. Second Respondent
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: JR 566/15 In the matter between: MG MALAKA Applicant and GPSSBC T MPSHE First Respondent Second Respondent DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR1342/15 In the matter between: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Applicant and SILAS RAMASHOWANA N.O. COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION MEDIATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG SYLVANIA METALS (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JA 83/2015 In the matter between: SYLVANIA METALS (PTY) LTD Appellant and M C MELLO N.O. First Respondent COMMISSION FOR
More informationRALPH DENNIS DELL APPELLANT
IN LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: JA 33/09 RALPH DENNIS DELL APPELLANT and SETON SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD First Respondent COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JUDGMENT Case no: JR3457/09 In the matter between: NORTHAM PLATINUM LTD and M E PHOOKO N.O COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
More informationINDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL
VOLUME 36 SEPTEMBER 2015 INDUSTRIAL LAW JOURNAL HIGHLIGHTS OF THE INDUSTRIAL LAW REPORTS VOLUME 34 OCTOBER 2013 Temporary Employment Service Deeming Provision in Section 198A(3)(b) of LRA 1995 Both the
More information[1] The appellant who is before us pursuant to leave granted by the court a. with effect from 23 December It is common cause that the dismissal
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) CASE NO.:JA61/99 In the matter between M MKHONTO Appellant and B L FORD N.O. 1 st Respondent THE COMMISSIONER FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationJR2218/12-avs 1 JUDGMENT [ ][11:33] Ex-Tempore
JR2218/12-avs 1 JUDGMENT IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: JR2218/12 DATE: 14-12-04 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION SOC LTD Applicant and COMMISSION
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN G-WAYS CMT MANUFACTURING (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN Reportable Case no: CA 11/2015 In the matter between: G-WAYS CMT MANUFACTURING (PTY) LTD Appellant and NATIONAL BARGAINING COUNCIL FOR THE CLOTHING
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable/Not reportable Case no.:jr2283/09 In the matter between: RUSTENBURG PLATINUM MINES LIMITED Applicant and COMMISSION
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Not reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 339/13 In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD Applicant and
More informationIn the matter between:
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PORT ELIZABETH Not reportable Case no: PA 1/14 In the matter between: BUILDERS WAREHOUSE (PTY) LTD Appellant COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Not of interest to other judges Case no: JS171/2014 In the matter between: LYALL, MATHIESON MICHAEL Applicant And THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. SEKATANKA DANIEL SEBATI and BIDSERV INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PTY. Third Respondent JUDGMENT
1 THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not Reportable Case No: JR2035/11 SEKATANKA DANIEL SEBATI and BIDSERV INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS PTY (Ltd) t/a G FOX & CO COMMISSIONER
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Nos: JR1061-2007 In the matter between: SAMANCOR LIMITED Applicant and NUM obo MARIFI JOHANNES MALOMA First Respondent TAXING MASTER, LABOUR
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT REDIS CONSTRUCTION AFRIKA (PTY) LTD
1 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN JUDGMENT Reportable Case No D1118/12 In the matter between: REDIS CONSTRUCTION AFRIKA (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Case no: J 2121/10 In the matter between: MTN SERVICE PROVIDER (PTY) LTD Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION,
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT. JOHANNESBURG Case No: J3298/98
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case No: J3298/98 In the matter between FABBRICIANI Applicant and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION & ARBITRATION J CAMPANELLA, COMMISSIONER
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES (PTY) LIMITED
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 61/18 ALLAN LONG Applicant and SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES (PTY) LIMITED COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND ARBITRATION M MBULI
More informationINTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD THE ROAD FREIGHT AND LOGISTICS INDUSTRY
INTHE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case no: JA51/15 In the matter between:- G4S CASH SOLUTIONS SA (PTY) LTD Appellant And MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF SOUTH AFRICA (MTWU)
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
Not reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, In the matter between: HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case No: JR 1693/16 PIETER BREED Applicant and LASER CLEANING AFRICA COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG. DATE: 7 July 1998 CASE NO. J1029/98. SECUNDA SUPERMARKET C.C. trading as SECUNDA SPAR
VIC & DUP/JOHANNESBURG/LKS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG DATE: 7 July 1998 CASE NO. J1029/98 In the matter between: SECUNDA SUPERMARKET C.C. trading as SECUNDA SPAR First Applicant
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 410/2014 In the matter between: Vukile GOMBA Applicant and CCMA COMMISSIONER K KLEINOT NAMPAK TISSUE
More information1] This is an urgent application brought in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules of the
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD IN JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: J1245/09 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION LIMITED APPLICANT AND COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION 1 ST RESPONDENT
More informationNot reportable DATE: 25 February 2009 NTOMBEMHLOPHE A. NGOZWANE
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT DURBAN CASE NO: D860/06 Not reportable DATE: 25 February 2009 In the matter between NTOMBEMHLOPHE A. NGOZWANE APPLICANT and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION
More informationfor Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration (CCMA) has
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO. JA2/08 In the matter between: ADVOCATE RAYNOLD BRACKS N.O. First Appellant (First Respondent in the court a quo) COMMISSION FOR
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. THE MEMBERS OF AMCU REFLECTED ON ANNEXURE A Second to Further Applicants
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JR730/16 In the matter between: THE ASSOCIATION OF MINEWORKERS AND CONSTRUCTION UNION First Applicant THE MEMBERS OF AMCU REFLECTED
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, DURBAN Reportable In the matter between: Case no: DA 3/2016 Appellant MATATIELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY and RASHIDA SHAIK (CARRIM) First Respondent SOUTH AFRICA LOCAL
More informationTHE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT
Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, CAPE TOWN JUDGMENT Case no: C 344/2016 In the matter between: IMATU Applicant and CCMA JOSEPH WILLIAMS N.O. MATUSA SAMWU SALGA STELLENBOSCH
More informationIn the ARBITRATION between:
ARBITRATION AWARD Arbitrator: COLIN RANI Case No.: WECT 15242-12 Date of Award: 14 FEBRUARY 2013 In the ARBITRATION between: CEPPWAWU obo Ingrid Adams (Union / Applicant) and Glaxo Smith Kline (Pty) Ltd
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN In the matter between: CASE NO J 1316/10 DIGISTICS (PTY) LTD Applicant And SOUTH AFRICAN TRANSPORT AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION ERENS MASHEGO & OTHERS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: J2857/07 In the matter between: KRUSE, HANS ROEDOLF Applicant and GIJIMA AST (PTY) LIMITED Respondent Judgment [1] The applicant, Hans
More informationDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: FREE STATE
ARBITRATION AWARD Panelist: Adv PM Venter Case No: PSHS938-13/14 Date of Award: 18 August 2014 In the arbitration between: NEHAWU obo TLADI Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: FREE STATE Respondent DETAILS
More informationIN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN. CADEMA INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD Appellant
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN In the matter between: Case no: CA1/01 CADEMA INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD Appellant (Applicant) and COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, First Respondent MEDIATION
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN
Page 1 of 17 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT BRAAMFONTEIN In the matter between: RAND WATER Applicant and T L MABUSELA N.0 1 st Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT BARGAINING COUNCIL
More informationIn the application between: Case no: A 166/2012
In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 DEREK FREEMANTLE PUMA SPORT DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant v ADIDAS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Respondent Court: Griesel, Yekisoet
More informationWhen going to work is illegal or impossible To what extent are employers expected to accommodate incapacitated employees?
When going to work is illegal or impossible To what extent are employers expected to accommodate incapacitated employees? By Aubrey Lechwano Recent comments by the commissioner in Moeketsi v Spilkin Optometrist
More information